Mono owners -tell me your feelings....

[Paratom]

i traded my MM for a M240 and did not look back

I didnt trade my MM in but I use the M240 much more often than the MM.
I really like the experience with the MM and the images shine but I am just not a b&w only guy.

 

[Seascape]

I accept the image quality advantage (for B&W) of the MM over my current camera, the M240. However the feature set of the M240 would make a MM an even more appealing camera.

I'm prepared to wait for the next generation MM.
I never regretted holding onto my M8 until the enhancements of the M240 became available. Sometimes skipping a generation makes more sense given the prices of these cameras……after all, they all take great photos.

 

[element-m]

There are so many great comments here and it just reinforces my own sentiments. An inspiring camera and instrument in every way.

 

[bradhusick]

What more can I say? It's just a thing of beauty and simplicity.

 

[jonoslack]

"Avoid overexposing highlights- you can't recover truly blown highlights".- Brad.

This HAS to be emphasized, because this MM is a new learning experience when you first get it.

Here's a little exercise that taught me about exposure with this camera in difficult light.

Two RAW images of my sister-in-law reading by a window. One exposed for the highlights, the other a bit more for the shadows. Both look unusable, but the image exposed for the outside highlights was just fine. The other one is indeed unrecoverable.

Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica.

go Figure

 

[jonoslack]

. . . and as an addendum, my Monochrom is here to stay (it has my name on it, both literally and figuratively). But if I were forced to decide between the MM and the M240 - it would be the colour camera every time - it makes wonderful black and white images, and it's much nicer to use . . . whereas the colour from the MM is really not that great

More seriously - if you only shoot B&W he MM is a no-brainer . . as it is if you can afford both . . but if you're only having one camera - I think the small compromise in B&W is more than offset by the quieter shutter and better colour of the M

 

[Hausen]

Really love my MM. Just feels right for me. Decided awhile ago that I wanted to simplify things and the MM was the start of that process. If I need colour I use my RX-1, it is a little camera that I can't let go. Once I have exited some of my film gear I want my travel kit to be MM, RX-1 and Hasselblad SWC. 90% will be with the MM. My only bug bear with Leica digital in sensor dust. Drives me crazy.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica.

go Figure

I use LR because I was on Windoze when it first came out, though I've moved to Mac now. I did try Aperture, but just didn't get the hang of it, and didn't want to complicate my life even more.

I've tried to figure how Aperture recovers blown highlights, but I can't. Could you explain, please? If it's really so magical, I might have to think about it again.

 

[fotografz]

Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica.

go Figure

I'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.

Not sure how Aperture can produce more dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing, but I'm all ears if it can.:thumbup:

IMO, "Blown" means exposed so no data was recorded in the last two or so highlight zones.

Thanks,

-Marc

 

[Double Negative]

I'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.

Not sure how Aperture can produce more dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing, but I'm all ears if it can.:thumbup:

IMO, "Blown" means exposed so no data was recorded in the last two or so highlight zones.

This was my thought too.

 

[jonoslack]

I'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.

Not sure how Aperture can produce more dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing, but I'm all ears if it can.:thumbup:

IMO, "Blown" means exposed so no data was recorded in the last two or so highlight zones.

Thanks,

-Marc

Of course Marc
My terminology was contradictory. Sorry.

With LR, if you look at the histogram on an image where it goes beyond the right side and move the exposure slider to the left - on a colour image it recedes gracefully depending on the camera, and detail will become evident where there was none before.

If you look at a similar Monochrom DNG file in LR, reduce the exposure, then the histogram drops immediately to the baseline (as if off a cliff). . . and no detail emerges. Just as it does with a jpg file

In Aperture, with the same DNG file, although you don't get as much 'recovery' as you do with a colour file, you do get a more graceful curve on the right hand side of the histogram, and some detail emerges from the brightness.

Better?

 

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks, Jono; I understand what you are saying, but I'm still very puzzled.

I thought that "recovery" (or reduce exposure) worked in colour dngs (and other raw files) because usually only one colour channel was blown, and the "recovery" came from the other two.

But, surely, the Monochrom doesn't have three colour channels? And once the information is gone, it stays gone? How can Aperture "recover" something that wasn't there in the first place? Or is it just that Aperture's histogram differs from that in LR?

What am I not understanding here?

 

[bradhusick]

If a pixel is truly blown that means in 8-bit its value is 255 (in mono) or 255,255,255 in RGB. If that's the case, there's no software on earth that can do anything except move it down to a value less than 255. There won't be any "information" in that pixel, just a value of gray. Yes, it won't be pure white and if you print it the printer will lay down some small amount of ink there, reducing the appearance of blotchiness when you view the print from an extreme angle. But it has nothing to do with the photographic subject - you're creating something from nothing and there won't be any image detail in that area.

You can try this on purpose by seriously overexposing an image and then trying to recover the highlights. It will get more gray, but there won't be an image in those areas.

 

[jonoslack]

Thanks, Jono; I understand what you are saying, but I'm still very puzzled.

I thought that "recovery" (or reduce exposure) worked in colour dngs (and other raw files) because usually only one colour channel was blown, and the "recovery" came from the other two.

But, surely, the Monochrom doesn't have three colour channels? And once the information is gone, it stays gone? How can Aperture "recover" something that wasn't there in the first place? Or is it just that Aperture's histogram differs from that in LR?

What am I not understanding here?

Well, of course, if the pixels are truly 255,255,255 as Brad says (and Marc so trenchantly pointed out) , there's nothing in the world which will recover anything. . . and no, the Monochrom doesn't have 3 colour channels - but I guess that a block of very nearly white is actually a mixture of 255 pixels and some which are something marginally less than that. Perhaps LR simply reduces the whole of the block to grey, whereas Aperture leaves the blown pixels as white for a while whilst darkening the 'almost white' pixels?

I don't have any Monochrom files with me here (or processing software either), so I can't show you a comparison - and I'm not likely to get to it for a few days, but it probably bears more investigation - the observation however remains, that in LR reducing the exposure on overexposed files reveals nothing - but in Aperture it does reveal something, and not just grey rather than white. it isn't as much as a colour file, but it is something.

All the best

 

[bradhusick]

I thought some here would like to see the silver mono with an "Arte di Mano Aventino Half Case with Thumbs Up Cutout for M8/M9/M-E/Mono" case, ThumbsUp and "Barton 1972 The Whip" strap.

Check the attention to the fit and finish of the case. Very impressive, albeit expensive. The case does not screw into the camera base - it just fits with the top straps.

Camera and ThumbsUp purchased from Popflash. Case from Leica Store Miami. Strap from Barton1972 web site.

 

[Double Negative]

The reason an MM file blows the highlights is because unlike an RGB image where there is often data in at least one of the channels - does not exist. White is white is white on the MM.

 

[Double Negative]

I thought some here would like to see the silver mono with an "Arte di Mano Aventino Half Case...

I did a fairly extensive review of Arte di Mano Cases and Straps a while back. They're the best half cases on the market currently, bar none. The fit and finish is exemplary. Only half case I've seen that actually "snaps" into position, the fit is that good.

The long-reigning champ, Luigi - while making nice cases for a long time, seem like DIY jobs with a shoddy fit, comparatively.

 

[Shashin]

The jump from level 0 to level 1 is far greater than jumping from level 254 to 255. And, if my math serves me well, that difference of the last level in an 8-bit file represents 226 luminance levels in a 14-bit file. That makes a difference in highlight recovery where you would not see that information unless it is stretched. But it depends how the stretch is done.

 

[mtsullivan]

Well, of course, if the pixels are truly 255,255,255 as Brad says (and Marc so trenchantly pointed out) , there's nothing in the world which will recover anything. . . and no, the Monochrom doesn't have 3 colour channels - but I guess that a block of very nearly white is actually a mixture of 255 pixels and some which are something marginally less than that. Perhaps LR simply reduces the whole of the block to grey, whereas Aperture leaves the blown pixels as white for a while whilst darkening the 'almost white' pixels?

I don't have any Monochrom files with me here (or processing software either), so I can't show you a comparison - and I'm not likely to get to it for a few days, but it probably bears more investigation - the observation however remains, that in LR reducing the exposure on overexposed files reveals nothing - but in Aperture it does reveal something, and not just grey rather than white. it isn't as much as a colour file, but it is something.

All the best

I use only Aperture and have since it first came out. I tried LR briefly when I bought my Monochrom and thankfully at the end of that week Apple updated Aperture to support the Monochrom!

I use the 'RAW Fine Tuning' to recover highlights and shadow detail: first the 'Boost' slider gets drawn to the left, sometimes all the way, most of the time to somewhere between 15 & 35. Next I use the 'Exposure' area and adjust the Exposure slightly, slide the Recovery all the way to the right, and adjust the Black Point & Brightness some. I also use the 'Straightening' tool when needed, but that's it for Aperture. I then open the image in Silver Efex Pro to get the desired effect.

With the ability to save presets in SEP my workflow in processing images it pretty quick and seamless! I know many grumble about Aperture and Apple not updating as often as Adobe updates LR--I'm of the mind that this is a good thing, why fix what ain't broke! For myself I'd be lost without Aperture.

Cheers!

 

[PeterA]

What a joy to be able to use a camera and concentrate on the play of luscious deep blacks and delicate whites fluttering in the breeze of the moment....

The camera allows one to explore luminance - sans the noise and bother of colour - a worthy companion.